Sunday, December 18, 2005

Because I Got High

There is a song out called "Because I Got High" by someone who goes by the name Afroman. I first heard this song last week in HMV. As I was looking at CDs I was listening to the lyrics. I was surprised that a song about drug use would be played in public like that. Most stores would avoid the controversy. Sure a majority of their customers would not care but there could be some people that would object. Anyways...one verse (2 minutes into the song) is quite sexually explicit (do a search for the lyrics your self). When this verse started playing I thought to myself that this could really offend someone. The song got cut off during this verse and another song started playing. I looked around and the employees were looking at each other nervously.

Today I found out a couple of my favourite movie characters (Jay and Silent Bob) appear in the video for this song. I googled for it and watched it. The verse with the sexual content is censored.

I find it strange that in both cases the drug use is OK but sexuality must be censored. Of course this is the same society that buys their children video games where you must stab, decaptitate and shoot your opponents but if these same kids were watching porn, mom would freak.

16 comments:

Diorissi said...

and sexual content might not equal porn, eh?

Tony said...

Depends on individual definition I suppose. Is mom expaining sex to her children porn?

Diorissi said...

I agree completely...

I think there is much that is sexual that isn't porn.

And isn't it wierd movies like Mr and Mrs Smith - callous psychopath killers are seen as so mainstream, while sexuality is so utterly taboo.

Tony said...

Exactly what I am getting at. What is the thought process? "I can't let my child see anybody engaging in any kind of sexual behaviour it might damage them. Instead I'll let them watch people kill people. That should be fine."

Anonymous said...

Behaviours have meaning only in context (rant familiar with my students).

What's a little psychopathy when heterosexual privilege sanctioned by law is involved. Not to mention beauty and romantic love....I mean, really, it's all family values, isn't it?

But even if the same acts are involved, we'll censor it if it doesn't reflect what are perceived to be family values at this point in time.

Discipline the unruly bodies...no????

upmkr

Diorissi said...

Yes the thought processes are hard to trace. Anger and aggression are so much about maintaining or saving face, and surviving as an individual, while sex is about connection and a blurring of boundaries with another. Wonder if the condoning ofblindness to violence shows something about the current cultural context? You know narcissistic rage is fine, but sex...desire...somewhere out of the picture as just too risky. Dunno, just wondering.

Diorissi said...

I checked out the Afroman lyrics in google. I see what you mean.

Tony said...

What is also interesting to note is that our society has deemed most recreational drug use illegal but having sex is perfectly legal. Yet this same society censors the lyrics involving the legal activity.

Diorissi said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Diorissi said...

love it love it...hadn't picked that paradox: sex, legal, but we don't wanna know; drugs illegal but - do tell...

Diorissi said...

Sorry about the deleted comment. I started discussing aspects of the lyrics and realised I sounded rather risque. That's the problem with reading too much Freud, getting too comfortable with wild language.

Tony said...

Post your thoughts. I am curious. Besides, I'm a fan of wild language.

Diorissi said...

Well, you asked... I was just thinking that the deleted acts of the verse of song were not just sexual, they were also polymorphously perverse (in the best possible way), and clashed is some ways not only with the moral requirements of society that sex should at least vestigially look like it might have something to do with procreation, but, the first instance in his verse clashed wonderfully with certain macho expectations [on thin ice here?]of what [real] men do, so would it be doubly threatening to the dominant order? Doubly worthy of deletion? His substitute act reinstates a wonderful solitary, need no-one onanism, so at odds with the almost wickedly tender first lines...

Without the lyrics none of this will make sense, so I suppose it is safe to post it. However, even with the lyrics I'm aware it might all be hogwash...

Tony said...

Wow....you bring a whole new level of examination to my rants.

You and Fionna are cut from similar cloths.

Diorissi said...

off down the coast for two weeks, just to say thanks for the warm reception of a fellow ranter.

Diorissi said...

and gracie for the comparison to Fiona. I'm a far paler version.